Landlady Breaching Terms of Contract - what can I do?

franklee

Soot2006 wrote: »

EDITED to add I see what you are saying, franklee ... Am now wondering if there are any other tenants in this shared house or only OP and LLs office ...

Yes I wondered that, but with an AST in a shared house the OP would expect to share with other tenants not the LL. If the LL is there nine hours per weekday then presumably she is using the bathroom and kitchen etc.

Anyway it seems to me that if the house is the OPs only or principal home and the LL isn't resident then it can be an AST. Therefore I would guess the OP (and other tenants if there are any) can control access. This seems to be backed up by the agreement:

zoomraker wrote: »

It's an assured shorthold tenancy

section 6.2

The Landlord shall be entitled to have and retain keys for all the doors to the Property but shall not be entitled to use these to enter the property without the consent of the Tenant

Anyway I recall why the tenant in the llz thread hasn't got an AST, it isn't his only or principal home. So the cases may be different but some of the info. over there is still relevant. I think the OP will be better off asking on llz if his current plan doesn't resolve the issue.

Would be funny if the LL turned out to be the same person in both cases.

silvercar

From reading this thread it seems it is not possible for a landlord to have a property where some rooms are let out to sharers and another is retained as the landlord's office.

I would have thought this is possible, but the property then is classified as mixed occupation and different rules apply?

clutton_2

""
Areas of contract not filled in properly

1. No Designated Room - agreed in email
2. Not specified wether rent is weekly or monthly - agreed in email
3. No payment date for rent specified
4. Not specified wether whole property or designated room is being let although shared parts of house are specified
5. Not specified wether I am responsible for all charges or a proportion of - was agreed by email rent was inclusive
""



there seem to be so many legal requirements not entered onto OPs original AST that i might begin to question whether it is a legal tenancy at all ???

anyone else got an opinion ?

franklee

silvercar wrote: »

From reading this thread it seems it is not possible for a landlord to have a property where some rooms are let out to sharers and another is retained as the landlord's office.

I would have thought this is possible, but the property then is classified as mixed occupation and different rules apply?

I suppose it's possible but not in the way the LL has gone about it. An AST is the wrong thing to have used, but as for what it should be, I dunno.